They weren't up by 10-12, they were up by 20. You play differently depending on the game situation.

you should never play in a way that gets you 11 points in 11 minutes. you're asking to lose. it wasn't just Wichita - teams do this all the time. things are going well and they suddenly think they can burn 34 seconds and jack something ugly up and maintain their lead. there's a reason the Buckeyes got to within 4 points (before the last ~30 seconds)

you should never play in a way that gets you 11 points in 11 minutes. you're asking to lose. it wasn't just Wichita - teams do this all the time. things are going well and they suddenly think they can burn 34 seconds and jack something ugly up and maintain their lead. there's a reason the Buckeyes got to within 4 points (before the last ~30 seconds)

I agree. Playing not to lose is a terrible strategy. Then, again, OSU shot something like 20% in the first half so maybe they didn't change their strategy too much, maybe OSU just started making slightly more baskets.

UCLA is just living in the past. They still fancy themselves as an elite program that has to win National Championships, yet have only won 1 in quite some time.

They need to start paying out for an elite coach and offering decent job security - or else this will be a revolving door for quite some time.

They need an uptempo coach like Shaka Smart who would have brought some excitement to the program. The only people who think of UCLA at an elite program that everyone clamors over are either UCLA fans or people 50 and over.

They need an uptempo coach like Shaka Smart who would have brought some excitement to the program. The only people who think of UCLA at an elite program that everyone clamors over are either UCLA fans or people 50 and over.

Says the guy who thinks UNLV is a legit contender...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Is that right next to the "UNLV: Headed to the Final Four for the second straight year" headline?

My main beef with Alford is that the guy has a bad track record in the tournament and doesn't have big program experience. But the man can recruit and players like him, which is why I think UCLA decided to go for him. I think the AD/boosters/alumni etc. want the program to become a UK-esque program in the West, which is why they went for a guy like Alford who will probably bring in a decent amount of high profile recruits.

I personally don't agree with that choice of direction, but it is what it is.